Nordost released the Quantum QX2 & QX4 Power Purification Device - Page 2

Well, anything that embiggens my soundstage.........

I the term " Electro Magnetic Field Stabilizer" made up? I googled it and came up with a whole lot of nothing.

This is what every high end product talks about.


Child like? I think this product and people who support it must have the mind of a child since nothing is questioned and everything is just thought up.


I guess people who want to know how a product works are ignorant then.

There isn't even a plausible explanation of what the device does, so how can one evaluate how well it does it? Based on the "fact" sheet, it seems to be mostly an electronic good-luck charm.

Us Reference Nordost Dealers were recently at the North American Distributor for Nordost (Audiophile Systems) where they unveiled the "Quantum." The results/effects were staggering. Like some mentioned, it is not a replacement for the Thor but rather it should be placed in line with the Thor and other associated gear plugged into the distribution unit. Lars (Nordost's Rep.) does some great demonstrations as many have seen at the shows. One particular example stands out in my mind from the training---we did most of the line running up to Valhalla and Odin and the effects of Quantum were so significant on the source unit that a stock ($5) power cord running through a Quantum hooked up to the unit bested Odin connected directly. (You should have seen the dealer orders after the demo) It is really hard to understand the sonic benefits until you have done a head to head.

"QRT has created a new device that is infinitely more effective called an Electro Magnetic Field Stabilizer"

"Quantum Resonant Technology is based in Santa Monica California. The company was founded in 1997 and has engaged in research and development in the field of imaging electronics and medical devices."



They've been doing R&D for 11 yrs, yet they don't have any issued patents, or published patent applications.

The term "Electro Magnetic Field Stabilizer" (or alternately "Electromagnetic Field Stabilizer") does not seem to appear in any issued patents or published applications.

Please explain how you will test it to see if it improves the sound?

Really? So they did a freq plot of the sound to show it improved? Or did they just plug it in and say WOW how awesome is this?

We will explain no technology before its time. We will sell it, however, at a very 'reasonable' price. Someday, when we are living in the Bahamas under assumed names, we are pretty sure we'll be able to reveal all.

Jim, my suggestion would be to test these claims first. Since you have a HTPC (at least your user name suggests that) you could easily do lossless A/B framegrabber screengrabs and post A/B images both with and without the EMFS and we could all observe and measure the differences and alleged improvements to your HTPC video (if any.)

It seems to me these video claims are much easier for one to test (and share results and data) as I think there is less psycho in the visual than in the acoustical. If it offers “big improvement in color saturation”, it should be easily duplicated and easily evidenced as such.

As Chu noted, if it somehow makes changes to the color saturation, you’ll want and need to recalibrate if you believe your saturation is correctly calibrated to reference standards without the Electro Magnetic Field Stabilization Unit in place.

If it doesn’t change color saturation or pass tests on the video claims, then the other claims from the same source are bogus by association.

Dave

Jim, there is a BIG difference. No one question the sound difference between speakers, because they are proven both in test and by measurments. This junk is not.

I have tremendous faith in Nordost and their products. After all, they sold me their Frey cables for a few thousand coin, which I switched in and out of my system and heard no difference compared to my less than $100 worth of Acoustic Research cables. Good stuff...

Duh, because at that point in time I had no way to try any out before hand and I believed their advertising bologna as well as some people on these fora...

God forbid one would listen and make a determination, eh?

I think if a framebuffer screen grab doesn’t show a difference then that would be a data-point that the device didn’t do a thing to the up-stream source. Does the claim only apply to analog or digital? (not both?) If a framebuffer screen grab doesn’t show a difference, it seems that would only be because there was no difference to be seen. That would explain why there aren't hundreds of A/B screenshots to support these claims.


It seems that’s what they're hoping you believe and understand as that’s the only remotely plausible explanation to me.

I don’t believe so. Most all of the sensitive electronics in a source or display is powered off of regulated output DC rails- well isolated, buffered, and decoupled from the AC mains. Reasonably designed, these DC rails should have the same DC voltage and noise components regardless of the mains. Most AC-DC main operated supplies auto range from 90-230V and will have the same output over that range. Perhaps there are designs that exhibit sensitivity to the AC mains or hyper-sensitive to effects of stray EM fields but I think this would be more an indication of the weakness of such a design rather that the strength of an external box. Possibly an exception to this would be a high-power audio amplifier that uses less-than-stiff DC rails and not as well isolated from the mains as most lower power and small-signal electronics are today.

Dave

It seems to me that if you had your saturation and gray scale properly calibrated to reference standards before adding more external boxes, then you had to recalibrate to reference standards after adding a box, systemically, there was no change to saturation or gray-scale. In both cases, your system was properly calibrated to reference standards. No?

Dave

If that were the case and the claims are real and honest, I’d expect the claims to be much more specific and to that point and not so seeming global and universal. An honest claim that it improved or covered a specific weakness would me made like “removes hum-bars and noise from XYZ projectors” etc. Some of these claims are so universal that they imply I’ll enjoy much more uniform and flavorful toast if I use it on my toaster. Regardless of the brand or type of toaster.

Dave

You know, I'd be more inclined to accept that as valid criticism except for the complete ******** used to market these things. As I've said many times before, if these companies wouldn't try to invent nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for their perceived benefits I would be far, far less critical of them.

In fact, I'm actually more open to the audible impact of power conditioners than I am to high-end cables and esoteric tweaks. But I don't apologize in the least for dismissing a device like this without listening to it when the very explanations offered by the seller are manure.

Amen! Amen! and Amen!

Michael,

Hear!! Hear!! I agree - if the seller, who designed the product; can't give a cogent
explanation of how the product works that falls within the realm of the laws of physics;
then the product is "snake oil".